Which other country wants to buy United other than Qatar? Enlighten me.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Which other country wants to buy United other than Qatar? Enlighten me.
Whereas:
Sir Jim's PR releases said the current debt wouldn't be paid off
Does that make either of them attractive?
There’s no good option here, people simping for either side are fecking weird.
Well at least everyone knows he’s just another billionaire greedy feck and not the club saviour now. Still take him and the 2 boyos over that murderous regime though. But it won’t be pretty.
there are no good options when this much money is involved.
there are no good options when this much money is involved.
I’m starting to think it wasn’t a great idea putting his face on that banner
Was the guy "simping" for Ratcliffe? Don't think so.
I call out the xenophobia and I get warned. Perfect, thanks.
I don't see how this works, Joel and avi own about 23% of the club, so buying out the other Glazers would only be 46% or so, it would rely on buying some of the other public shares which could be a longer process.
Plus the shares the other Glazers sell convert to class A shares with massively limited voting power compared to any remaining Glazers.
If they work a way around this and the Glazers have no control personally I couldn't give a shit if they're minority shareholders, but who's going to clear nearly a billion in debt if they're only 51% owners compared to full ownership, or be willing to invest the sane in infrastructure? Its these things that are holding us back, and I'm not convinced a deal that sees Jim alongside Joel and Avi would lead to the kind of investment that's required
Plus the shares the other Glazers sell convert to class A shares with massively limited voting power compared to any remaining Glazers.
If they work a way around this and the Glazers have no control personally I couldn't give a shit if they're minority shareholders, but who's going to clear nearly a billion in debt if they're only 51% owners compared to full ownership, or be willing to invest the sane in infrastructure? Its these things that are holding us back, and I'm not convinced a deal that sees Jim alongside Joel and Avi would lead to the kind of investment that's required
No it didn’t. It made no comment regarding it.
If that's the case I imagine he'll be upping his bid significantly, probably closer to the 6B the Glazers have been wanting.
Well you see, only brown people can be bad. You will learn in time.
You told someone to shut their racist ass when they had said nothing racist or xenophobic. Do tell us how supporting a state bid from a country that treats migrant workers deplorably shows you as being the tolerant, enlightened one.
What a fecking rat, he's going to ratfeck us. Give me Qatar!
Except that my comment wasn't racist nor xenophobic. At all. You immediately pulled out the race card when no one even thought about that. Thanks.
As much as the Glazers being around sticks in the throat, any investor could, in theory, anyway buy 20% of the club. As long as they have reduced or no control and the Qataris are kept out, this is good news at least in the short to mid term.
Let’s be clear, any person from Qatari origin that would have bid would be linked with below part morality ideology. Your only rebuttal is that it is state-owned, even though it was said it was privately backed. So yes, you are xenophobic.
At 51% ownership and voting rights you can sack/change board members, change the dividend payments. Generally decision wise, you own the business. Ownership % is not the same as voting control however, so there would need to be an agreement on that before the purchase.
Fair enough, was not aware of that fact. That said, where the holding company is incorporated and how the governance structure is set up influence the amount of control a minority shareholder can have - so no two cases are exactly the same. I'd imagine INEOS's vision here is a situation where the Glazers can continue to enjoy the growth in the value of the club over the next few years (allegedly the reason they're hesitant to go through with a full sale) without having any actual influence over how things are run. But again, that's all conjecture.
Well I just did and so did many others in this thread.
This is what's driving me mad about this debate. I've seen lifelong anti fascists and anti racists being called Islamaphobes because they're concerned about Qatar. It's insane.
Have you followed this thread at all?
He has 1,319 posts in this thread all cheerleading for Ratcliffe.
Well, apologies then. I'm also in the Ratcliffe camp, simply because I'd take anything over becoming a state-owned club. But in no way am I a "fan" of his.
It’s hard to imagine that this works out well for us in the long term. INEOS paying off £1bn of debt, building a stadium and revamping a training ground when they don’t even fully own the club seems unlikely.
I also worry that we’ll see some of the football staff from Nice takeover and its not clear to me that they’ve done that good of a job.
Just have to hope that the Glazers being reduced to shareholders will see us focus more on the football side of things and that ten Hag will get the backing he needs.
I also worry that we’ll see some of the football staff from Nice takeover and its not clear to me that they’ve done that good of a job.
Just have to hope that the Glazers being reduced to shareholders will see us focus more on the football side of things and that ten Hag will get the backing he needs.
Jim is a sly weasel he is absolutely likely to sly his way to get what he wants.
No they didn't mention debt in press releases. Some reports stated that they would need to seek funding to buy the club outright though.
Any person from any country that isn't linked to the goverment is welcomed by me.
This Jassim dude however, is literally part of the royal family that runs an authoritarian regime.
My ethical objections to Qatar have crumbled at the prospect of the Glazers not fekking off.
Truly living up to the moniker of British Glazer. feck off back to Nice.
I believe the terms and conditions of the current credit agreements state that if more than 50% of the shares change hands the debts must be repaid within the week.
It’s likely that INEOS would take on debt to pay off the current debt. As a much larger company they’d get better rates and it would be easier to pay it off.
The unknown part is whether they would use United dividends to make the payments I guess.
What a rollercoaster of a thread, as a neutral I hope it never ends 
Is there any reliability in these rumours of SJR getting in, Glazers staying and the debt still there? Or it's just the latest attempt from a journalist to keep the saga alive?
It's a really weird peace of information to reach the surface at the eleventh hour of the third round of bids. It does however makes some sense as if it's true that A) The key to win the bid is the Glazers greed and B) Qatar has the most economically attractive bid, the logical step that SJR would take is to compete with future money against actual money, i.e. letting them keep stocks.
Is there any reliability in these rumours of SJR getting in, Glazers staying and the debt still there? Or it's just the latest attempt from a journalist to keep the saga alive?
It's a really weird peace of information to reach the surface at the eleventh hour of the third round of bids. It does however makes some sense as if it's true that A) The key to win the bid is the Glazers greed and B) Qatar has the most economically attractive bid, the logical step that SJR would take is to compete with future money against actual money, i.e. letting them keep stocks.
Nice one Jim…getting the fans onside from the beginning.
But Manchester United do not need a bottomless pit of money. Everyone wants the Glazers gone, but that doesn't mean that we should take the first option available no matter how bad they are and how they would taint the club's history forever.
All we need is competent people in charge of footballing decisions, and to spend our money more wisely.
Jim said himself the Glazers are nice guys. That should've been the warning really that he was happy to get into bed with the.
At this point Ratcliff would be horrible for the club. Glazers remaining means no money will be invested and debt will remain. No minority investor is going to spend a penny making others richer. Anything has to come from the club, which means additional debt. It'd also be dumb because with the current debt the club won't increase in value without investment. Makes no sense.
Not that I am saying I want Qatar but they aren't the first option. I am yet to see another name/entity say they want a full purchase except them
What a rollercoaster of a thread, as a neutral I hope it never ends
Is there any reliability in these rumours of SJR getting in, Glazers staying and the debt still there? Or it's just the latest attempt from a journalist to keep the saga alive?
It's a really weird peace of information to reach the surface at the eleventh hour of the third round of bids. It does however makes some sense as if it's true that A) The key to win the bid is the Glazers greed and B) Qatar has the most economically attractive bid, the logical step that SJR would take is compete with future money against actual money, i.e. letting them keep stocks.
Keegan has been the mouthpiece for Qatar in this takeover, so he likely knows something or at least this info has been fed to him from Qatar.
Interesting. Although debt is super normal in business the fans are not going to accept owners who keep the debt, but I guess if the debt was moved over to Ineos that would be more accpeted.
It gets complicated though as Ineos are clearly not looking to own 100% of the club at this stage, so it's hard to see why they would take all the debt on themselves.
I'm sure the rat bros would love to stay but if you're a cashing-out Glazer rat, why would you accept the lower offer?
To keep the family happy? Doesn't sound very Glazery to me.
To keep the family happy? Doesn't sound very Glazery to me.
This is true in the current paradigm of FFP.
But with the threat of a European Super League competing with the Premier League for advertisers/TV money and a new football regulator coming in - raising the limits on owner funding is definitely a possibility.
If clubs were given permission to spend £800m a year based on revenues plus owner funding making up any short fall - we’d be £250m behind if our owners can’t/wont compete.
- Status